COCHRANE: Junior hockey new focus for union giant

The last attempt, in 2012, to organize a bargaining unit for Canadian major junior hockey league players resulted in a swift thumbs-down on the newly formed Canadian Hockey League Players Association.

The union, which focused in large part on the QMJHL in early efforts to persuade players to join, lost credibility after a series of confusing and embarrassing gaffes.

It appears, though, that the Canadian Hockey League — a 60-club body consisting of three leagues — might face another effort to organize.

This time, the move carries more weight.

Unifor, the country’s biggest private-sector union boasting 300,000 members, has made no secret in recent weeks that it is studying the junior hockey situation with an eye toward unionizing players if conditions aren’t improved.

Unifor president Jerry Dias said Thursday he and his team are moving very deliberately on the fact-finding aspect of the job. They want to educate themselves on the issues and are meeting with top agents, current and former players, parents and a string of others on the hockey ladder.

“This is complex,” Dias said. “We are learning more every day. You are dealing with private companies with free labour.”

The power of a giant union — for example, Dias has already met with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne on this matter — certainly represents a greater challenge for the CHL and its franchise owners.

Halifax Mooseheads owner Bobby Smith, who operates one of the leading franchises in Canadian junior hockey and has a reputation for treating his players well, was quite aggressive in defending against CHLPA accusations in 2012.

On Wednesday, he had no comment on the current situation. At this point, he said, owners are directing questions to one of the CHL’s league presidents.

It appears, though, that the issues haven’t changed much over the past couple of years.

Some of the main concerns expected from a union perspective include the small stipends players receive from their respective teams, insurance coverage, the rules by which teams help pay for players’ university funding and the division of millions of dollars in Hockey Canada profits from world junior tournaments and television deals.

Expect teams to continue to argue that they already assume considerable costs for their players — room and board with billet families, hotels and meals on the road, flights home throughout the season, a large portion of their university education and other perks. And many owners still insist some franchises aren’t financially strong enough to start giving players salaries based on anything close to a minimum wage.

Which side is right?

That answer depends on how you perceive the role of owners and players in the major junior system. I’ve long believed players deserve more of the benefits, but only as long as those benefits don’t put the franchises and league in jeopardy.

This may be a case where there actually is plenty of study necessary before anyone can say with certainty what would be a fair working relationship.

Dias said he’s asked Ontario to put together a task force to examine working conditions for major junior players. That might provide enough information to point toward which side is most in the right.

Regardless of what happens next, this could be quite a battle.

Junior hockey owners can be a stubborn group, especially when they believe they’re in the right but are being forced to change. Meanwhile, Unifor has the resources to stick around for the duration of any battle.